The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment in the October 2010 murder of 18 year-old Raylene Dyer. Aracely Cahueque, the woman who police believed was the mastermind behind Dyer's killing, will have to face a re-trial for abetment to her murder.
You may remember the details of this case, one of the most shocking murder stories to ever hit the evening news. Dyer was decapitated, and then, her body was dumped into a river. Police believed that all this was done to steal Dyer's 3-month-old baby, and give the infant to Cahueque, so that she could pass off the newborn as her own to her boyfriend. The infant was actually found at Cahueque's boyfriend's home; she had left the baby there with him.
Jason Anderson, Darren Banner, and Brandon Budna, were charged with Dyer's murder, and in March of 2014, they were all acquitted by Justice Denis Hanomansingh. They successfully convinced the judge that the very detailed confession statements they gave to police were beaten out of them.
The cops didn't have any evidence to link Cahueque to the crime, but while Budna was on remand at the Belize Central Prison, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Cheryl-Lynn Vidal paid him a visit. She convinced him to cooperate with her office's prosecution against Cahueque, and he agreed. The next day, Budna gave police a second statement saying that he and Cahueque were students of the University of Belize, and that on 3 separate occasions, Cahueque asked him to murder Dyer.
It appeared that the prosecution would succeed in Cahueque's prosecution, but in March 2014, days after Budna was acquitted, he took the stand as a prosecution witness, and he refused to cooperate with the crown counsels prosecuting the case. He had to be treated as a hostile witness, and at the end, the crown counsels had to rely solely on his written statement to police.
Justice Denis Hanomansingh ruled the statement inadmissible, saying that the DPP got it through unethical means.
His harsh putdown of the DPP read, "...the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in visiting and interviewing the witness Brandon Budna....and asking him to give a statement implicating the accused in the said murder is highly unethical to say [the] least... because of the actions of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Investigating Officer, I will exercise my discretion and exclude the statement in these proceedings on the basis of bad faith, pressure, hope of expectation of advantage and unfairness."
With no other evidence against Cahueque, the judge upheld a no-case submission from her attorney, and he directed the jury to a verdict of not-guilty, setting her free. You'll remember this explosive footage captured outside the Belmopan Police Station, minutes after Cahueque's acquittal, when her mother and one of Raylene Dyer's family members came to blows.
For context, we re-air Cahueque's only comments to press on this accusation, which she granted right after her acquittal:
FILE:March 21, 2014
Mike Rudon, Ch 5
"How does it feel to be free after almost 4 years?"
Aracely Cahueque - Acquitted of Abetment to Murder
"Well I just want thank God, because he is a just God and has always been with me. And I want thank the people who prayed for me and also thank God for putting angels in my way. Like my mother is a blessed mother and Mr. Bradley who also is an angel for me. And I just want to state that I had no reason to kill Raylene Dyer, no reason at all."
So, if you're following, it means that this trial's turning point was focused centrally on this statement, and the judge's interpretation of the DPP's actions. She promptly filed a notice of appeal, and the case finally came up for hearing in June of this year.
In that appeal case, Senior Crown Counsel Shanice Lovell attempted to convince the panel of judges that Justice Hanomansingh's reasoning was deeply flawed. She told the court that the grounds of his ruling on the statement, "bad faith, pressure, hope of expectation of advantage and unfairness", were not supported by evidence.
Anthony Sylvestre was the attorney appointed by the court to represent an absentee Cahueque, and he conceded to the court that none of the judge's grounds for disallowing the caution statement against her were present in the case. He did try to convince the Court of Appeal that a retrial should not be ordered. He submitted that given the 8 years that has lapsed, there may be a problem of witnesses with faded memories, and that Cahueque would not be able to mount a proper defense, since she is out of the country.
After months of consideration, the Court of Appeal returned with a ruling that the DPP's appeal was being allowed.
As for the DPP, the findings of the panel of judges vindicates her completely.
The judges said, quote, "It can be seen from the ruling of the trial judge that his main focus was on the Director of Public Prosecutions… There is absolutely no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Director. As such, it is the opinion of the Court, that the discretion of the trial judge was exercised improperly and as a consequence, he erred in refusing to admit the statement of Budna."
End Quote.
So, if you're wondering what next, it is not exactly clear, since Cahueque is not in the country, and there are no indications at this time, when she will return. If and when she does though, it is expected that she will be taken back into custody while she awaits her retrial.
| 